How the British became the new Turks

LIFE IN BRUSSELS has become all too exciting for British diplomats. Before Brexit, they needed the patience to haggle over boring, intricate policy. Now they find a knack for bellicosity more useful. Since completing its departure from the EU at the start of the year, the British government has launched into scraps with its erstwhile colleagues. It began by refusing to offer ambassadorial status to the EU’s man in London. It then unilaterally overrode parts of its agreement on Northern Ireland, sparking apoplexy at the European Commission, which accused it of breaking international law. As a backdrop, British MPs accuse their European peers of vaccine nationalism, after the EU brought in export controls on jabs made in the bloc. Allegations of hypocrisy and even malevolence zip between London and Brussels like a grumpy Eurostar.

On leaving the EU, Britain was always going to face a choice: should it be more like Switzerland or Turkey? Countries that are neighbours to the world’s largest economic bloc must either accept its supremacy or try to fight it. Switzerland and Turkey best represent these two options. The Swiss, who have a complicated tangle of agreements with the EU, may grumble about the EU’s dominance over their affairs, but ultimately accept the intrusion. Turkey has a far simpler relationship: a customs union that allows goods to move relatively freely. Yet President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government wrestles the Europeans at any opportunity.

Britain could have gone either way. Theresa May, prime minister from 2016-19, enjoyed walking in the Alps and viewed the EU with Swiss realism. Once outside the bloc, she reckoned, Britain would still seek to influence it, roping itself into everything from foreign policy to data-protection laws in the same way that Switzerland ties itself to various EU rules. The plan was to make friends and influence people, with diligent diplomacy compensating for the loss of a seat at the table. However, Mrs May’s successor, Boris Johnson, the proud descendant of an Ottoman politician, has taken a far more Turkish approach. He led Britain out of the EU and into a loose and rather shallow free-trade deal with it. He sees Europe as a sovereign rival, and his diplomats follow his lead. Private deliberation is out. Public confrontation is in. Brussels is there to be bashed, especially when it does outrageous things, like threaten to block vaccine exports to Britain.

Britain discovered its rebellious streak rather late in the day. After it voted to leave in 2016, it continued to abide by the bloc’s rules. British officials diligently attended meetings on EU youth policy and the like, even while politics at home was a four-year screaming match. But now a spikier tone emits from them. During the difficult talks as a stand-still transition period came to an end on December 31st, officials wore Union Jack lanyards. They were told to be “leaders” not “mice” by David Frost, the peer leading the British side. Then and subsequently, threats to rip up already agreed deals were frequent. It is a tactic that EU officials who negotiate with Turkey will recognise, given Mr Erdogan’s repeated threats to terminate an agreement with the EU over refugees. Turkey has been playing this game for a long time. Britain, by contrast, is still experimenting. “It’s like a teenager questioning their identity,” says a slightly patronising Eurocrat.

An element of nihilism hangs over the relationship. Neither side particularly wants or expects a deeper partnership any time soon. Britain is happy to scrap with the EU because not much is at stake. Fresh infringement proceedings, which can result in fines, carry little threat. (There are already dozens of such proceedings open against Britain.) Other sanctions are similarly blunt. The EU can withhold valuable baubles such as a decision on financial equivalence, which would allow British insurers and asset managers to operate in the EU. But British officials already put the chance of such a concession at close to zero. The threat to withdraw an offer one never intended to make is not very potent, as the Turkish government can attest. Turkey launched its application to join the EU in 1987, yet the path turned out to be a treadmill rather than a travelator. It knows its prospects of joining the bloc are non-existent and it behaves accordingly.

Toblerone to Turkish delight

In Europe geography is destiny. All parties are stuck with each other, whether or not their governments accept it. Switzerland smooths over its disagreements via constant negotiation with the EU, haggling over everything from the free movement of people to banking secrecy in a never-ending cycle of talks. Being a small landlocked country at the heart of the European continent lends itself to grumpy compromise. Turkey is in a far more awkward place. Considered not quite European by those in Brussels, it is simultaneously too small to pose a challenge but too large to push around. In short, it is in a position to which Britain can relate. This poses a conundrum to the EU, too. Unlike Switzerland, both Britain and Turkey are military partners, not just economic ones. Both are members of NATO. The EU’s most pressing strategic problems, including an unstable north Africa and an interfering Russia, will be solved more easily if Turkey and Britain are onside.

Yet it may prove even harder for the EU to build a constructive relationship with Britain than with Turkey. Ultimately, the EU does not much care about the fate of Turkey as long as it remains stable. In the case of Britain and the EU, each side needs the other to struggle (even if neither side will admit this). For Europe, Britain must be demonstrably worse off as a result of leaving the bloc. In exchange for following all its strictures, the EU promises prosperity. The prospect of a large, successful economy with a different worldview just off its north-west coast is an uncomfortable one. For the British government, the pain of leaving the EU must be seen to be worth it. This is easier to claim if the EU fails to become a beacon of transnational bliss. Friction is inevitable. Those hoping for a boring relationship are out of luck. ■